Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: George Dishman on 19 Nov 2005 07:43 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:c2fsn1t9elj93qhgdn2bp0ok8m14r5dp8s(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:52:11 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:r5vpn19ht033gp1f5m2dhcei4h521m083n(a)4ax.com... >>> On 17 Nov 2005 05:51:27 -0800, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > >><question replaced> >> >>>>> george, I'l try to make this even more simple. You are still have >>>>> trouble >>>>> understanding it. Below is a laser beam with a infinitesimally wide >>>>> diagonal >>>>> element drawn through it. >>>>> >>>>> | | >>>>> | | >>>>> | | >>>>> / >>>>> / >>>>> | | >>>>> | | >>>> >>>> So tell me, how does an element of infinitesimal width stretch all >>>> the way across a beam which is 1.1mm wide? >> >>Propaganda Henri? I think you just couldn't answer. > > By 'width' I was refering to the thickness ... Logical :-p That aside, your "infinitesimal elements" previously were points of infinitesimal volume moving along infinitesimally thin diagonal lines, were they not? This has now become an "infinitesimally wide [thick] diagonal element". > ... of what is really an elliptical > plane about 1.5mm long. It has infinitesimal thickness. That is because it is just a convenience we invent to help keep track of the motion of the wave. In reality, the field varies as the sine along the beam, remember this: > >... I'll add a plot of field versus > >distance to the next bit: > > > >> > \ > >> > - ) > >> > / > >> > ( > >> > \ > >> > - ) > >> > | | > >> > |-| > >> > | | > > > >Does that help at all? Each hyphen is a cross > >section of a plane of maximum voltage. > > clever drawing... So what you have is a 1.5mm ellipse with a thickness of half a wavelength which is still an arbitrary cut. The thin plane merely identifies the location of the _peak_ of the field. Energy is distributed throughout the volume. > It is not light. It is nothing. Right, it is a mathematical plane we use only to aid description. The light (E and B fields) fills the volume of the beam. >>>>TWLS has been measured and found to be c, always, and >>>>you know it, and that is what I said. >>> >>> You claimed the diagonal speed of the elements was also c. >> >>Light moving diagonally is just light and you have >>accepted that the speed of light has been measured >>using two-way techniques. > > Very funny George. > > How would you apply a TWLS technique to measuring the speed of ONE > infinitesimal thin plane along an infinitesimally thin diagonal line? Oops, what was "really an elliptical plane about 1.5mm long." just became "an infinitesimally thin diagonal line" again. The beam isn't "infinitesimally thin" in the moving frame Henri, it is close to 1.1mm wide and the volume of the beam is filled with light obeying Maxwell's Equations. > Remember, all you have is a vertical laser beam moving sideways past you. What you have is a source moving transverse to the detector which is making the measurement. Sound like the Sagnac experiment Henri? You have been at pains to tell me how the source moves transversely in the frame of the mirror ;-) <statement replaced> >>>>By your own argument, none of them exists since they >>>>are infinitesimal. That is nonsense of course but if you >>>>want to use that argument in the moving frame, it also >>>>applies in the laser frame. >>> >>> I'm afraid you are so hopelessly indoctrinated, your brain has ceased to >>> function freely. >> >>I see you cannot refute my statement. > > You are acting dumb George. I think by now you must realise that I'm > right. You had to switch above from "elliptical plane" to "an infinitesimally thin diagonal line" to avoid the problem, and for the second time you had to snip what I said. You wouldn't have had to do that if you were right. The beam has finite width in both frames and the volume is filled with light. Mathematical lines tracing some feature like the centre of the beam are mathematical lines in both frames so you can't compare the beam in one frame with the line in the other frame to prove one is light and the other isn't. >>> I think that was Huygens idea. >> >>That's right, the ME provide a mathematical >>equivalent to his graphical method. >> >>> Why should it be appropriate for lasers? >> >>Because light is classically a wave phenomenon and >>wave-based methods work until you get to addressing >>quantum effects. > > So where are all these diagonal light beams you imagine are continuously > emerging from the sides of a vertical laser beam? That's what you are > claiming... No it isn't Henri. I've corrected you on that several times now. Telling lies won't solve your problem. > according to Huygens and Maxwell, a laser beam will emit wavefronts > in all directions. > > I don't think that actually happens do you George? > I think you are babbling hopelessly in an attempt to prop up your faith.. I think you are inventing babble that I never said because you cannot address what I really said. My statement was nothing more than the Huygens method. >>>>What you will find is that the result in the moving >>>>frame becomes like this with each wavefront moving >>>>diagonally towards the top right. >>>> >>>>> \ >>>>> \ >>>>> \ -> >>>>> \ >>>>> \ >>>> >>>>Try to work out what the wavefronts look like inside >>>>the laser as they bounce between the mirrors and >>>>you should finally understand. >>>> >>> >>>>> >What comes out of a green laser is light Henri, even if >>>>> >you move your hand while holding it. >>>>> >>>>> It is only light in the vertical direction, in all frames. >>>> >>>>It is light in all frames. The beam is also vertical in all frames. >>>>The difference is that the wavefronts are propagating in the >>>>diagonal direction. >>> >>> George, there is no hope for you. >>> Tell me this: >>> >>> Here are two laser beams: >>> >>> | / >>> | / >>> | / >>> | / >>> >>> Do you really honestly believe you can make one exactly like the other >>> simply >>> by moving it sideways at the right speed. >>> That is what you are claiming. >> >>You said the beam was vertical in all frames and >>so did I. You said the beam moved sideways and so >>did I. I make no claims about the diagonal beam >>and what you say above is not true > > You (and Einstein) claim that a vertical beam in one frame becomes a > diagonal > one in another. Nope, here is what I drew again, you can see it above: >>>>What you will find is that the result in the moving >>>>frame becomes like this with each wavefront moving >>>>diagonally towards the top right. >>>> >>>>> \ >>>>> \ >>>>> \ -> >>>>> \ >>>>> \ I'll say it yet again to see if it can penetrate: the beam is vertical in the moving frame. Aside: the ASCII exaggerates the slope, the wavefronts would be almost horizontal. <snip insults - no content to reply to> >>> It is bloody obvious that if the two observers are in relative motion, >>> no >>> light >>> beam can approach them at the same speed. >> >>I reapeat, that is YOUR competing postulate. > > even SR says their closing speeds with the light are different. From a different frame, correct. > If that is the case, why should they get the answer c from Maxwell's > equation. Because Maxwell's Equations apply to EM disturbances so the light moves at c. The other object is moving at some speed v and "closing speed" is defined as the difference in whatever other frame you are using. This is simply a question of definitions Henri. >>> That is unless you want to tear up the whole of physics as it stands. >> >>Physics as it stands has been based on SR for nearly >>a century. You are going back to physics as it stood >>before Maxwell's Equations. > > No I'm not. Yes you are, you are postulating Galilean Relativity and trying to explain light within that framework using a ballistic model for propagation. Maxwell's Equations are like a classical wave theory except that the speed of the medium doesn't appear. > ,,and any SRian should be very interested in my question. > Your theory has to explain why. "the whole of physics as it stands" is currently based on Lorentz invariance so the question of tearing up physics doesn't arise. You are the one trying to replace it with Galilean Relativity and a Ritzian light model. >>> I'm giving up on you George. >>> You are a hopeless case. >> >>That's it Henri, run away. > > I'm not running George, just making better use of my time. > there is no point in arguing with the hopelessly indoctrinated. I am not "indoctrinated" in 18th century physics, we have long left this stuff behind, but it's interesting to see whether Ritz might have fitted into it. >>>>> >> Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'. >>>>> > >>>>> >Same thing Henri. >>>>> >>>>> Not the same George. >>>> >>>>Exactly the same Henri, open a textbook on basic calculus. >>> >>> Calculus doesn't work to well with 'very small' increments, George. >> >>Open a book on calculus Henri, I'm not going to teach you. > > Why do you think it is called 'infititesimal calculus'? Because it uses limits of quantites that are not zero as they tend towards zero. If y=f(x) then dy/dx is undefined if dy and dx are identically zero but is defined (with certain limitations on function f(x)) provided they are finite. They are called infititesimal because we work with the asymptotic limits, not the actual finite values. >><snip more evasion by insult> >> >>>>No, according to Maxwell's Equations, the field from any >>>>single one of your "infinitesimal elements" would disperse >>>>in ALL frames. It is the interference between the infinite >>>>number of elements covering the horizontal surface of the >>>>wavefront that allows the beam to avoid dispersing. >>> >>> George, when I move past a vertical laser beam, I don't see it suddenly >>> dispersing in all directions. >> >>No Henri, perhaps that's because it is "the interference >>between the infinite number of elements covering the >>horizontal surface of the wavefront that allows the beam >>to avoid dispersing." >> >>As you said above, I am just explaining Huygens method to >>you. > > But you claim that ONE diagonal element replaces the vertical beam. > What are you actually trying to say George? Go back to what you said at the top: > By 'width' I was refering to the thickness of what is really an elliptical > plane about 1.5mm long. It has infinitesimal thickness. .... > How would you apply a TWLS technique to measuring the speed of ONE > infinitesimal thin plane along an infinitesimally thin diagonal line? What I am saying is that you get a beam that doesn't disperse if you take the "elliptical plane about 1.5mm long" and apply Huygens. If instead you use just one "infinitesimal element" you talked of previously which is where the plane of "infinitesimal thickness" intersects the "infinitesimally thin diagonal line" then you have a point source which falsely suggests dispersion. I am saying that, to analyse the plane as "infinitesimal elements", you have to consider the sum of all the elements that form the plane. >>> Androcles is rioght. There is no point in aguing with totally >>> indoctrinated people like you. >> >>Not if you can't even understand Huygens method, I tend to >>agree. > > Then the laser beam should be dispersing in all directions in its own > frame.. > It doesn't. Right, and you will find that if you consider _all_ the "infinitesimal elements", not just one, which is what I said. George
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Nov 2005 16:00 On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:08:21 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:27:07 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> >> Wouldn't you like that to be true eh? >> >> At what tempertatures do they run? > >Depend on the cooling. >Say 50 - 150C. > >> What determines the direction of emission of a photon from an atom Paul? >> Come on, you are the expert..... > >I am a little reluctant to use much time to explain >to you what you will ignore anyway. I take that to mean you don't know. ...which isn't surprising because I doubt if anyone has the faintest idea. >But in a laSEr, we are talking about Stimulated Emission. >That means that a photon passing close by an atom may stimulate >it to emit a new photon with the same direction and with the same >phase. Well now, that IS interesting. It appears to support my W-aether theory. >> Why should gas lasers work at all? > >Why indeed. :-) >I am not going to give a thorough description, you can look it up >yourself if you really want to know. >But you never really want to know, you will rather invent it yourself. > >But I will mention a few points of special interest to this discussion. >Let us consider a HeNe laser. Let us assume the gas temp. is 350k. >Let us assume the length of the tube is ca. 0.75 m. >The rms speed of the He atoms will be: >v^2 = 3kT/m where m is 4 proton masses. >v = 1.47 km/s. (rms) >v/c = 5*10^-6. >This means that the frequency emitted by the atoms >will be Doppler shifted, so the frequency will be >distributed like a Gauss function with relative width ca. 5*10^-6. >The central frequency fo = ca. 0.5*10^15 Hz > >However, the laser tube is a resonator, and only the frequencies >given by f = m*c/2L can exist in the resonator. >The distance between the possible frequencies is: >delta_f = c/2L = 2*10^8 Hz. >delta_f/fo = 4*10^-7 > >Note that a laser do not emit strictly monochromatic >light, but a number of close spectral lines. >We can see that in the order of 10 spectral lines can exist >within the frequency distribution above. > >We KNOW this is happening in a laser. >Each spectral line is emitted by atoms with >a specific longitudinal velocity component. > >According to the BaT, the light from these spectral >lines should travel at different speeds. >They don't. >BaT falsified. Yes, very funny Paul. I think it is a little more complicated than that. I think the photon fields combone somehow to create the resonance. I don't think molecular speeds would make much difference. Remember it was YOU who claimed that electric fields act instantaneously. > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Nov 2005 16:32 On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:04:48 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:rl4qn1lp8beprcbhcaas2fvksb1k5o5qe1(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:05:22 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> >> wrote: >>>> Hang on A. Were talking about sagnac. >>> >>> >>>Do you have a hard time understanding f.(c+v)/c and f.(c-v)/c ? >>>Roll the turntable along a road and let it make footprints, but >>>imagine it's slipping so that the "wavelength" is slightly short. >>>Then roll it back again, still slipping, so that the "wavelength" >>>is slightly long. The difference in print lengths is called the >>>beat. >> >> Yes. we all know how beating takes place. >> >>>Or try it without slipping and two different sized paint rollers. >>>Sheesh... so simple. >>>Androcles. >> >> It's anything BUT simple A when applied to a four mirror sagnac.. >> >> The point is, in the sagnac, no 'beating' takes place during constant >> rotation. >> Your explantion doesn't achieve that. > >It's extremely simple. Here I'll make v = c to show how simple it is. > >Side of square 300 meters. Delta t = 1 microsecond. >Observer stands at A. > >t = 0 > >A----B >| >C----D > >Light leave A, goes toward mirrors B and C at speed c. > >t = 1 >Light has arrived at B and at C. 300 metres, 1 usec. >During this time, turntable has revolved 90 degrees. > >C----A >| >D----B You are using the non-rotating 'table' frame here. For light to go from A to B, it has to leave A and move in the direction of D, not B...because B is where D is when the light arrives. Also, you cannot use c. You must use c+v. In the above case, v happens to be zero because A is moving at right angles to point D. > >t = 2. >Light has arrived at D from B, meets light at D fron C. >During this time, turntable has revolved 90 degrees. >D----C >| >B----A > >Observer is now standing at D, he didn't move, still at top left. >One ray went all the way around, the other stayed by the observer >while its source went backwards at c. >f1 = f(c-v)/c = 0 >f2 = f(c+v)/c = 2. >Beat frequency 2+0 = 2-0 = 2f. >No relativist should look at a high speed 4 mirror Sagnac, >his heart will stop as time stops. >You and I only need worry about holding the equipment >together in the centrifuge, we can stand above or below >for our own safety. I have not yet developed a suitable >alloy to take the strain or we would have the ideal relativist >murder machine, slaughtered by their own theory. An >autopsy will not convict either of us, it was suicide anyway. Unless I have misunderstood what you have said here, I think you are oversimplifying this problem. The 'observers' are moving with the apparatus, bnot remaining at a fixed point. > >(NOT Suitable for 5yo Kids) >Sagnac is off limits to 5yo Kids, tusselader, moortels and idiots in >general. > >Androcles. > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: George Dishman on 20 Nov 2005 05:23 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:nfhsn1p5qtslgismtsq4tr1akram78c641(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:31:03 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:u2bnn159rk2qq2emp92mapnq4l0jfdk3b9(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:14:17 -0000, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: > >>> >>> No you haven't. You have shown that the fringes shold not MOVE >>> during constant rotation, according to the BaTh. >> >>Go back and read all those weeks of messages again, they >>all prove there is NO DISPLACEMENT at constant angular >>velocity in Ritz. As you can see in my other reply, your >>own diagram confirms that though I think you need to >>consider this more carefully, it isn't really that simple. > > I have thought about it a great deal. > > I should imagine that in a four mirror sagnac, fringe movement would be > quite > small. In a FoG with many turns, a much longer path length is provided and > hence much greater fringe movement. That's true, you can use more turns in the fibre coil, but it is still quite small. > This is detected by focussing the fringe > pattern onto a narrow slit and counting the alternate dark/light > fluctuations. There is no slit or counter. A photodiode is used but the displacement is only a fraction of a fringe. The photodiode measures the brightness of the light which depends on the phase shift between the beams or to put it another way, which part of the pattern, a light or dark band, falls on the detector. > I'm not sure how fringe direction is monitored but it would be. That's actually the clever bit, the source is modulated so that the output is the product of a sine wave with the cosine produced by the interference. It means there is a sign change at the zero rotation point but gives the sensitivity of an interferometer. That's slightly different from the lab experiment version where fringes can be seen and counted as you suggest but the physical principles are the same, it's an engineering solution to the question of directional ambiguity. Given that the displacement is a fraction of a fringe and generally has a sine curve, the current in the photodiode is roughly proportional to the fringe displacement, or technically to the phase difference between the two beams. Phase difference is 2 * pi times time difference over the period or 2 * pi * frequency * delta_t. The shift is actually much smaller but: > Now, during an acceleration period, 50 such pulses might be counted. The displacement is proportional to the acceleration so "As the acceleration smoothly increases, 50 such pulses might be counted." > When the > acceleration ceases, ... "As the acceleration smoothly decreases, 50 such pulses would be counted but in the opposite direction." so that, once the speed returned to zero, the counter would also read zero. > ... the visible fringe might not be exactly in the centre of > the slit > and I assume there is a way of determining that offset...because it > is essential for accuracy..... The offset would have been present before the acceleration and could be calibrated out in the factory. Only long term drift or temperature sensitivity causes a problem. > since the offset is integrated electronically > with time to obtain total rotation angle. No, the output from what you say above if integrated would give speed since it is proportional to acceleration. > I think you and Andersen are omiting a factor of (2-Root2) when you claim > that > the displacement should return to zero during constant rotation, according > to > the BaTh...In fact, the travel time around each path is not the same. A factor of root two applied to zero is still zero but I am prepared to consider there might be a root two scale factor difference, I haven't looked at it in detail. There is a fundamental difference between an output proportional to speed as predicted by SR and an output proportional to acceleration as predicted by Ritz which makes a factor of 0.7 of lesser significance at the moment. >>> That is what happens. You have proved the BaTh >>> to be consistent with sagnac. >>> >>>>You knew that a week ago but this whole acceleration >>>>sidetrack seems to have confused you. Anyway, have a >>>>look at the car, duck and goose and see what you make >>>>of it. >>> >>> It's a diversion. >>> >>> You know that the fringes only change their displacement during >>> acceleration. >> >>Correct, by a constant amount while the acceleration is >>present, and since it is proportional to the acceleration, >>it goes back to zero if the speed subsequently becomes >>constant again. > > Haha. > So you apply an acceleration that slowly approaches zero. During that > time, the > fringes move in one direction only. Yes, they slowly approach zero because their displacement is proportional to the acceleration. > Do you really think they suddenly flip right back to the starting point > when > the acceleration ceases? > > That's nonsense George. It is indeed. >>> My diagram shows why. The path length change only during acceleration, >>> not >>> during constant rotation. >> >>Careful with your wording Herni, your diagram shows the >>path length ARE CHANGED during constant acceleration from >>their values during constant velocity. > > The path lengths remain constant during constant rotation. And the speeds remain constant at c+v and c-v so the times are equal. > During a period of acceleration, I think the path length is CONTINUALLY > increasing. That's not what your diagram shows. For CONSTANT acceleration, the path lengths are constant and changed from the non-accelerating length by an amount you show as 1/2 a t^2. > I too have been working on that point. It's not all that simple. Trust your diagram then. >>> The fringe 'displacement' at any instant is the integrated effect of all >>> previous ACCELERATIONS. >> >>There is no physical mechanism involved that could integrate >>the difference in arrival times of wavecrests. The actual >>path times don't directly produce an output. > > During an acceleration, the two beams continuosly 'beat'. Even Androcles > get's > it right occasionally. During a _change_ of acceleration, they beat. When the acceleration becomes constant, the stop beating at take a stable value of phase shift at the value they had at that time. > The beats are counted. That would be an electronic integration which would give speed. You could imagine that this is how commercial units work (it isn't) but that wouldn't apply to the lab experiment. Remember in the original experiment of Sagnac, he saw a shift of 7% of a fringe while the table was turning at 120rpm. What you are describing would be that he counted 0.07 fringes during the acceleration phase and the displacement returned to zero once constant speed was achieved. > The count IS really an integration of the path length > change (or, more correctly, the number of wavelengths in each path) Yes but counting would have to be done as part of the electronics, it is not inherent in the physical process. > The count itself (fringe diplacement) is also electronically integrated to > give > total rotation angle. That would be a second integration. George
From: George Dishman on 20 Nov 2005 06:47
Androcles wrote: > Henri Wilson wrote: .... > > Unless I have misunderstood what you have said here, I think you are > > oversimplifying this problem. The 'observers' are moving with the apparatus, > > bnot remaining at a fixed point. > > You misunderstanding doesn't surprise me. > Get one of those kiddy rides called carousels and staple a lightguide > around the rim. Nail a LED onto the rim, shine it down the light guide > The kiddy observer on the ride sees c, if they look, but they don't > look. Henri is correct, the detector is on the carousel, (as well as the LED and pipes). The kids are the only ones doing the looking. Put two light pipes half way round the rim in opposite directions, and put a flash bulb between the ends on one side. Put two photodetectors on the other ends at the far side and an instrument to record the time between their reponses to the flash. The kids reckon a speed of c and length of half the circumference for each pipe so the instrument records no time difference regardless of the speed as long as it is constant, the flash arrives simultaneously through both pipes. > Fuckin' simple as it can be and as simple as I can make it. Simple, easy to understand, but you had the detector in the wrong place as Henri said. George |